Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use mlir_mode::fast for dot operations on Navi and reduce k threshold to 1024 #2608

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

turneram
Copy link
Contributor

@turneram turneram commented Jan 5, 2024

No description provided.

@pfultz2
Copy link
Collaborator

pfultz2 commented Jan 9, 2024

This looks like this is missing the k<1024 change.

find_mlir_standalone_convolution_op{get_mode("convolution", mlir_mode::int8)},
find_mlir_standalone_dot_op{get_mode("dot", mlir_mode::none)});
find_mlir_standalone_convolution_op{get_mode("convolution", mlir_mode::fast)},
find_mlir_standalone_dot_op{is_navi ? mlir_mode::fast : get_mode("dot", mlir_mode::none)});
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should probably be get_mode("dot", mode) so we use MLIR for dot fusions when using the MIGRAPHX_ENABLE_EXTRA_MLIR setting.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry thats not the case. This is standalone.

@pfultz2
Copy link
Collaborator

pfultz2 commented Jan 12, 2024

Can this be targeted to develop and then cherry picked into the release branch?

@causten
Copy link
Collaborator

causten commented Jan 12, 2024

This can be closed. We won't be using this technique

@causten causten closed this Jan 12, 2024
@causten causten deleted the navi-gemm branch January 12, 2024 04:21
@causten causten restored the navi-gemm branch January 12, 2024 04:22
@causten causten reopened this Jan 12, 2024
@causten
Copy link
Collaborator

causten commented Jan 12, 2024

There will not be a need to target this against rocm-rel-6.0. If you have other uses in 6.1 then go for it but a new PR might be easier

@turneram turneram closed this Feb 9, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants